In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00001-CV

______________________________

CURTIS RAY WOLF, Appellant

 

V.

 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTIONAL

DIVISION; JAMES CLEVELAND BROWN, Appellees

---

                                              

On Appeal from the 202nd Judicial District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 03-C-2004-202

---

                                                 

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Curtis Ray Wolf appeals from the denial of a motion for summary judgment. Wolf is an inmate at the Barry Telford Correctional Facility in Bowie County, Texas. Wolf alleged in his petition that he sustained injuries due to the alleged negligence of James Cleveland Brown. While being transported by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in a bus being driven by Brown, Wolf alleges he sustained injuries in an accident. Wolf brought suit against Brown and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

            An appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all parties and all pending claims, except for matters necessary to carry out the decree. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The trial court signed the order granting "Defendant Rupert's Chapter 14 Motion To Dismiss" April 6, 2004. However, this motion did not dispose of the lawsuit against Brown. An order that disposes of claims by only one of multiple plaintiffs or against only one of multiple defendants does not adjudicate claims by or against other parties. Id. at 205. We note that a final, appealable summary judgment may consist of a series of piecemeal orders. Hervey v. Flores, 975 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, pet. denied). On May 3, 2004, Wolf filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that no genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether Brown's negligence caused Wolf's injuries. On November 19, 2004, the trial court denied Wolf's motion for summary judgment because Brown was "not a party to this cause of action due to defective service of citation." That order only denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and is not a final judgment. See Novak v. Stevens, 596 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. 1980).

            Interlocutory appeals are permitted only in limited instances. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2004–2005). The statute authorizing interlocutory appeals is strictly construed because it is a narrow exception to the general rule that only final judgments and orders are appealable. Montgomery County v. Fuqua, 22 S.W.3d 662, 664–65 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, pet. denied). Because an appeal from a denial of a motion for summary judgment under these circumstances is not permitted under the statute, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.

            We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

 

Date Submitted:          January 5, 2005

Date Decided:             January 6, 2005

anion appeal. For the reasons stated in that appeal, cause number 06-01-00194-CR, we likewise rule on those contentions in favor of the State in this appeal.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Ben Z. Grant

Justice

Date Submitted: August 12, 2002

Date Decided: October 1, 2002

Do Not Publish

1. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2002).